Veterans Affairs Committee on Dec. 6th, 2006

[Keith Hillier]

I would respond by saying that the Prime Minister announced there would be a veterans bill of rights and an ombudsman. That announcement was made on Parliament Hill at the launch of the new Veterans Charter. Minister Thompson has reiterated that in many public fora. We, in the department, are working very hard to support that. I know the minister wants to move ahead with due haste, but at the end of the day, it's up to the Government of Canada to decide what the model will be and what the implementation will be through the parliamentary process.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I know I am a passionate kind of man who wants to get things moving. I have the feeling the main problem is with the veterans affairs department. It is as if people in the government perceived the ombudsman like an enemy that is out to make trouble and blow the whistle. That is not what this position is all about.

An ombudsman's role is to make sure the veterans get a good service and to contribute to better policies. He or she makes recommendations. An ombudsman cannot say we should pass a piece of legislation or change some program or other. He or she just makes recommendations. We heard last week that the ombudsman in New Zealand made 51 recommendations, and that 49 of them were implemented and the other two were discarded.

The role of an ombudsman is not to turn everything upside down in the government and departments, but to protect the citizens and to make recommendations on whatever is not working well.

One of the things that comes to mind which does not work well is the much talked about Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Some order needs to be restored in this board. I would like to know how Mr. Munro, a former president of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, was appointed to this board. Was this a political appointment, or was a competitive process followed? I am really wondering.

How could the former political assistant to Mr. Assad, the former member for Gatineau, be appointed to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, even if this member did not try to be re-elected? I can give more examples of appointments to the board that seem to be political appointments.

We travelled to the veterans hospital in Ste. Anne de Bellevue. I can tell you the ombudsman there seemed to be more a member of the management team of the institution than a person whose mandate is to care for the patients, who are veterans.

[Keith Hillier]

I can't respond to many of the points that Monsieur Parent made, in terms of appointments to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board or other matters where we're proceeding. I'm totally convinced that the government will move forward as soon as possible, but I can't sit here today and say it's going to be at a specific point in time, because that's out of my purview.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Understood.

Mr. Stoffer, for five minutes.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, sir, for appearing before us today.

You indicated that you're fully supportive of the position of an ombudsman. I'm not sure if you can answer this question, and if you can't, I understand.

We heard, through rumblings, that there was slight opposition within the department to an ombudsman. Has that position changed? Is it fair to say that everybody is on board now, or is there still resistance within the department?

[Keith Hillier]

I can assure you there is no resistance in the Department of Veterans Affairs with regard to the creation of an ombudsman. I hear these comments from time to time, and some of them are attributed to me, but other than at this committee, nobody has ever asked me. In some cases, people are attributing opinions to individuals without actually asking them what their opinion is.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Right. Okay. Thank you.

This is sort of a sidebar. We're talking about the veterans bill of rights, which is coming up for discussion very soon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but overseas veterans--I'm talking British and Polish veterans--at one time were covered under DVA, prior to program review. Is that correct?

[Keith Hillier]

Yes, you are correct. I don't have the specific details as I don't work on the policy program, but certainly there were changes made in the mid-1990s for what were called Allied vets. As a result, there was a reduction in certain benefits and programs for this group of veterans as compared to those for veterans in general, if I could put it in that context.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

In a cooperative nature, and now that we have the fiscal capacity in this country.... I'm just throwing this out there for general discussion. It seems that lately we're getting a lot of calls from British and Polish veterans looking for assistance through DVA, and unfortunately, we have to tell them that because they served under another country during the war, they are not covered.

If we do have an ombudsman and if we do have the veterans bill of rights, should not these veterans also have access? They don't have the services now, so the ombudsman would have to say right now, “No, we can't discuss your concern because you're not covered under DVA.” I find it rather unfortunate. They served with Canadians but not under Canadians. I can understand the fiscal restraint in the mid-1990s, but now that that excuse is gone, would it not be feasible or advisable to somehow include these veterans as well under DVA protection so that they in turn could fall under the bill of rights for the veterans ombudsman?

I know that's a parliamentary situation.

[Keith Hillier]

It is a parliamentary situation. It was a Government of Canada decision to change the benefits for this group of Canadians, and certainly, if in fact these benefits were to be, shall I say, reinstated, there would have to be a Government of Canada decision to do that irrespective of what the fiscal situation might be. That is a matter on a government-wide basis.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Now it is on to Mr. Sweet for seven minutes.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

We're just going to do a switch here and go half and half.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you for coming and clarifying a few issues.

I just have a comment or two for my very passionate friend from the Bloc. I'd like to make it clear that this government is actually determined to put an ombudsman in place and a bill or rights in place because we feel those have been lacking for a long time.

I also recognize that sometimes democracy is awkward and takes a little bit of time, but if you're going to do it right, you actually need to talk to the user groups who are going to be the most affected by this. We'll be in a position fairly soon to move forward quickly, and I was very pleased not to hear you state today that it would take five years, because that seems completely unreasonable to any thinking person.

There are a number of countries that have an ombudsman and a bill of rights for veterans in place. We had a visitor here last week from Australia who gave us a bit of an explanation on Australia. Could you talk a little bit about any of the other countries that you're aware of that have an ombudsman in place and how they went about developing the structure?

[Keith Hillier]

You talked about Australia. Actually, the British model is very similar. They have an ombudsman for all of government. We looked a little bit to the U.S., but their whole system is so much different. They have something called the GI Bill of Rights--please don't quote me on the number--and I remember seeing the document, and it's about this thick. It's quite a lengthy document.

Mr. Chair, if I may, with regard to the bill of rights, one of the things I can tell you that veterans organizations have told me is that they don't want something that's this thick. They want something that's simple and understandable. In the words of one of the individuals I consulted with, you have to come up with something that a soldier can understand.

Many governments--and I can go to my notes there--have ombudsman models. They all tend to be a little bit different. They tend to be, if I could use the term, home grown to suit the culture and the size of government of the population they're trying to serve.

There are a few fundamental principles that we've seen. First of all, ombudsmen do not interfere in the normal decision-making process. They're not part of a legal system. They are there, in many ways, to recommend, to look at systemic.... Sometimes what you find is that everybody has done the right thing, but maybe the outcome hasn't been the right outcome. They're involved in recommending.

In terms of the models, in some cases they report to Parliament at large, and in some cases they report to a minister. In fact, interestingly enough, in the U.S., if I could use that model, there are some cities and states that actually have ombudspersons for veterans issues. I think if you look at them you'll see that they all have the same basic principles of being able to review cases, review systemic issues, and make recommendations for improvements on a general basis or make suggestions relevant to a specific case. But they have no authority to overturn a decision that has gone through due process.

Also, the other principle, generally, is that in order for an ombudsman to take a case, the normal redress mechanisms, the normal responses through a department, whether it be through an administrative appeal or some other appeal mechanism, would normally have to be exhausted before such time as an ombudsman would launch an investigation, unless there were some very exceptional circumstances.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Sweet can have the balance.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Hillier.

I'm very happy that a couple of the questions I had have been answered. Just to confirm, I'm very happy that you support the concept of an ombudsman and that you have not felt any resistance. I would take from this that you mean that in the department there's also an endorsement of the process leading up to, and of course, adopting an ombudsman.

In June I had asked you about a timeframe. You'd only had the file for a couple of months, so you couldn't estimate. You did just give an estimate of a couple of months, but you specified that that's for the administrative infrastructure. Give me an idea of the additional things that you would think would have to be put in place, as well.

[Keith Hillier]

First of all, once an ombudsman is put in place, that person would have to decide on the make-up of their team. My understanding is that at DND it took them about a year, I think, from the time that an ombudsman was actually named until they actually got in business. I believe it was up to a year. Please don't quote me on that, but I understand that was the general timeframe. Having said that, the types of things that have to be done, in my view, are the following.

The ombudsman has to be able to staff jobs. That has to be done through the public service using public service staffing rules. There may be some need for contract employees, and that would have to follow Government of Canada procurement policies. Staffing and procurement are not things that happen overnight. So that is one of the things.

There would have to be a decision on the location of the ombudsman, the physical infrastructure. The ombudsman is going to need office space, computer hookups, and what have you.

Also, the ombudsman, whoever is appointed, really needs to think about what the mix of the team is. He or she would need people, in my view-and having talked to various ombudspersons around town, a variety of people would be needed—people with a legal background, people with a background in administrative investigations, etc.

I think the other thing, too, that would have to be put in place is processes and procedures in terms of dealing with the department. In fact most ombudsman models—I think Mr. Winzenberg stressed this when he was here on Monday—try to do it at the lowest level, try to do it fast. Every case doesn't have to be brought to the attention of the deputy minister or the ombudsman. Hopefully, people working in the ombudsman's office can resolve issues on a bilateral basis with a program officer or an area counsellor or what have you.

So there would have to be some of these administrative processes, but certainly from the standpoint of the department, we are quite capable and quite willing and able to support the ombudsman in terms of helping set up the administration. As for how that would happen, at the end of the day, we would have to wait and see.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I want to make sure I get in one last question, Mr. Hillier.

Have you had in your busy schedule an opportunity to read the transcript of our testimony over the months that we've been gathering it?

[Keith Hillier]

Yes.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I have two concerns.

One is what I see would be the volume for this ombudsman concerning the backlog from VRAB. The other is that we've had, I think, two ombudsmen say that one role they have a real challenge filling is that of forensic investigator. I'm wondering if you would comment on how that's going to impact the setting up of an ombudsman office.

[Keith Hillier]

What you touch on is something that's very challenging. The question is, how many people are going to come forward and request the service of the ombudsman?

Of course, we've looked at the Australian model, as was discussed here on Monday. Mr. Winzenberg is working with us on this particular file. I've met a number of times with Monsieur Côté, and he has outlined to me some of the volumetrics that his office has—the number of staff, the number of complaints.

At the end of the day, the person who is appointed, the ombudsman, will have to use what I would call best professional judgment. It's a matter of making sure you have sufficient staff to be able to deal with the intake, because if somebody goes to the ombudsman, and if, for example, they're complaining about slow response time or delay and the ombudsman is no better at responding, the credibility and faith in the system is going to be lost extremely quickly. But by the same token, you don't want to go overboard and staff up an organization with so many people that all of a sudden you don't have sufficient....

My recommendation would be to start with a core group and allow for capability to expand or contract based on the needs. I think it's probably fair to say that maybe in the first year there might be larger numbers of inquiries than maybe there would be so many years out, because of the attention that it will probably attract. Certainly from speaking with veterans organizations, I think there are people out there, undoubtedly, who will pursue the services of the ombudsman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Valley, for five minutes.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Hillier.

I'm not trying to trick you in any way, but I usually write good notes, and I don't have any notes from your visit, so maybe I was away when you visited us—in June, I believe it was?